Re: Input on request for link relation [ w/ proposed modifications to link draft ]

Hash: SHA1

Robert Sayre wrote:
>> As such, I think there's more value in something more capable
>> than specific, lest we all drown in a sea of special-purpose,
>> needlessly application-specific protocols.
> One example of an unreasonable request would be to suggest that
> developers are required to solve a much bigger problem then they've
>  set out to. In this case, I don't see a reason to apply stop
> energy. The PubSubHubbub effort is clearly not going to hurt the
> Web or the Internet in general, the link relation namespace is not
> especially crowded, and the IETF is free to modify or expand the
> definition of the hub relation over time. With that in mind, I
> don't think the text of the registration should or will stop people
> if the proposed relation turns out to be useful for non-feed media
> types.
I am not necessarily opposed to the addition of a
simple/non-namespaced relation, but it still seems like it should be
necessary to have some the relationship clearly articulated enough to
delineate between "hub" (or whatever relation name that is used) and
the existing "monitor" relation. A developer (like me) should be able
to make an informed selection between the two for other notification

- --
Kris Zyp
(503) 806-1841
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -

Received on Sunday, 20 September 2009 23:42:12 UTC